Teen curfews

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Wait... 10% support it?!

[Gustaf]

I guess I'll try again...many people I know have been involved in crimes, one way or another. A friend of mine was, for instance, arrested for using a fake ID, trying to get into a bar. Another of my friends know several girls who have been raped. I've met someone who would send around pictures of his penis via bluetooth in order to annoy people on buses. A guy in my class was in bandage for some time after having had a fight with a Nazi. Now, these people, who have been arrested, are likely to grow up and become lawyers, doctors or whatever. They're not specifically criminal, they're just young and commit crimes because of that reason. However, I don't know many 40-year olds who are involved in gang fights on the street, rapes, etc. And the reason is that a 40-year old who engages in criminal behaviour is not a normal person, but probably a criminal. I don't see how you can ignore this? If you take to lawyers, married with two children living in a high-income suburb, neither is going to party around town and smash a car. Skin colour doesn't really enter into it. But if you take a 19-year old kid, none of these statistics would matter. I would never be surprised to hear about a teen male being involved in some kind of criminal activity, regardless of other factors, because that is what you expect of young people.

Alright. I'm being lazy and don't want to read the whole discussion.

I agree with every word you say up there (except for the part "is not a normal person, but probably a criminal". Too black-and-white to be of much worth in a real life situation, not to mention that "criminals" are more or less normal people.) but how does it relate to teen curfews?

Well, that was obviously an exaggeration which I will not stand up for.

As for you question, it doesn't really. My point is that it is reasonable to support a teen curfew but not a black curfew, or whatever, because the groups are fundamentally different in this aspect.

Change that to "not quite as immediately obviously unreasonable", and I'm ready to agree with you. It's not reasonable because it's not solving anything, and is unenforceable - something which the fact that your point is true simply doesn't affect.

How do you define reasonable? You're bringing in more practical reasoning here, and I'm not really an expert on criminology. I do think a teen curfew would lead to a signficant drop in the number of teens about in the street and that would in turn lead to a drop in crime level. It wouldn't be completely enforcable though, of course. The point would probably be that teen gangs roaming the streets could be taken care of even if they claim to be only "hanging around". But I meant reasonable more in an idelogical sense, i.e. it does not logically contradict itself or has to be based on racism, not in an empirical sense, as to whether it would lead to its goals.

Basically, a teen curfew would lower crime and thus improve the lives of a group of people (A). But it would severely lower the quality of life of another group of people (B). When B is based on age this is by most people considered to be morally acceptable, given that the improvement for A is big enough and the cost for B is small enough. We would however not, and this is my point, find this acceptable if B was a racial group. So, it is in a fundamental way morally acceptable to favour a teen curfew rather than a black curfew.

Now, a second point is whether, in the particular case of teen curfews, the improvment for A IS big enough and the cost for B IS small enough. You seem to think that the improvement for A is so small that it's hardly worthy of consideration. I'm not prepared to pick a side on that one, though I lean towards the improvement being bigger than you think. The cost for B is, however, too big to be demanded by a group, even if it is an age group. Therefore, teen curfews would be unacceptable to me. One could however have a more conservative view of children and education and find it too be acceptable. I wouldn't consider that to be completely unreasonable (but, yes, mostly so...).

[minionofmidas]

I guess I'll try again...many people I know have been involved in crimes, one way or another. A friend of mine was, for instance, arrested for using a fake ID, trying to get into a bar. Another of my friends know several girls who have been raped. I've met someone who would send around pictures of his penis via bluetooth in order to annoy people on buses. A guy in my class was in bandage for some time after having had a fight with a Nazi. Now, these people, who have been arrested, are likely to grow up and become lawyers, doctors or whatever. They're not specifically criminal, they're just young and commit crimes because of that reason. However, I don't know many 40-year olds who are involved in gang fights on the street, rapes, etc. And the reason is that a 40-year old who engages in criminal behaviour is not a normal person, but probably a criminal. I don't see how you can ignore this? If you take to lawyers, married with two children living in a high-income suburb, neither is going to party around town and smash a car. Skin colour doesn't really enter into it. But if you take a 19-year old kid, none of these statistics would matter. I would never be surprised to hear about a teen male being involved in some kind of criminal activity, regardless of other factors, because that is what you expect of young people.

Alright. I'm being lazy and don't want to read the whole discussion.

I agree with every word you say up there (except for the part "is not a normal person, but probably a criminal". Too black-and-white to be of much worth in a real life situation, not to mention that "criminals" are more or less normal people.) but how does it relate to teen curfews?

Well, that was obviously an exaggeration which I will not stand up for.

As for you question, it doesn't really. My point is that it is reasonable to support a teen curfew but not a black curfew, or whatever, because the groups are fundamentally different in this aspect.

Change that to "not quite as immediately obviously unreasonable", and I'm ready to agree with you. It's not reasonable because it's not solving anything, and is unenforceable - something which the fact that your point is true simply doesn't affect.

How do you define reasonable? You're bringing in more practical reasoning here, and I'm not really an expert on criminology. I do think a teen curfew would lead to a signficant drop in the number of teens about in the street and that would in turn lead to a drop in crime level.

I don't. The first part yes, probably, but there's not much reason to assume the second.

Just for one thing, there's lots of places to 'hang around' that aren't as it were on the streets. And the main victims of that kind of 'crime' are much the same people as the perpetrators anyways.
You *might* see a slight decrease in shoplifting, that's about it.

[Gustaf]

Just for one thing, there's lots of places to 'hang around' that aren't as it were on the streets. And the main victims of that kind of 'crime' are much the same people as the perpetrators anyways.

Ah, that is a good point. But I'm thinking of the whole "going home late at night and running into a teen gang"-sort of thing. Of course, that isn't as common as people think, but it does happen. There was a case in Sweden quite recently with a man who told some guy to not urinate against the wall. The guy and his friends knocked him down and jumped on his head till he died. Also, it isn't just about perpetrators it's also about paternalistically protecting those people. Drunk teens are very common victims of all sorts of crimes.

[Bono]

Just for one thing, there's lots of places to 'hang around' that aren't as it were on the streets. And the main victims of that kind of 'crime' are much the same people as the perpetrators anyways.

Ah, that is a good point. But I'm thinking of the whole "going home late at night and running into a teen gang"-sort of thing. Of course, that isn't as common as people think, but it does happen. There was a case in Sweden quite recently with a man who told some guy to not urinate against the wall. The guy and his friends knocked him down and jumped on his head till he died. Also, it isn't just about perpetrators it's also about paternalistically protecting those people. Drunk teens are very common victims of all sorts of crimes.

So you admit it's paternalism, and you still support it?
When did you become a nanny state liberal?

[minionofmidas]

Just for one thing, there's lots of places to 'hang around' that aren't as it were on the streets. And the main victims of that kind of 'crime' are much the same people as the perpetrators anyways.

Ah, that is a good point. But I'm thinking of the whole "going home late at night and running into a teen gang"-sort of thing. Of course, that isn't as common as people think, but it does happen. There was a case in Sweden quite recently with a man who told some guy to not urinate against the wall. The guy and his friends knocked him down and jumped on his head till he died. Also, it isn't just about perpetrators it's also about paternalistically protecting those people. Drunk teens are very common victims of all sorts of crimes.

I've never had a crime happen to me as a drunk teen. I've had a leatherjacket stolen as a drunk young twen though, and had to walk home without it on a cold night. Thank God I was drunk.

[Alcon]

How do you define reasonable? You're bringing in more practical reasoning here, and I'm not really an expert on criminology. I do think a teen curfew would lead to a signficant drop in the number of teens about in the street and that would in turn lead to a drop in crime level. It wouldn't be completely enforcable though, of course. The point would probably be that teen gangs roaming the streets could be taken care of even if they claim to be only "hanging around". But I meant reasonable more in an idelogical sense, i.e. it does not logically contradict itself or has to be based on racism, not in an empirical sense, as to whether it would lead to its goals.

Basically, a teen curfew would lower crime and thus improve the lives of a group of people (A). But it would severely lower the quality of life of another group of people (B). When B is based on age this is by most people considered to be morally acceptable, given that the improvement for A is big enough and the cost for B is small enough. We would however not, and this is my point, find this acceptable if B was a racial group. So, it is in a fundamental way morally acceptable to favour a teen curfew rather than a black curfew.

There is no scientific proof that teen curfews actually do much of anything to the crime rate, so I don't see why you're making this presumption.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

ha, dazzleman exposed his racism here.

Anyway, the "teens are more likely to commit some crimes" argument is simply flat out false. Like I said in my first post, it wasn't 16 year olds in my city who tipped cars and set up bonfires in the middle of the street just for kicks, it was adults, mostly ages 18-25, some even older. And I have noticed that the people causing trouble after dark are almost always my age, not high schoolers.

[Gustaf]

Just for one thing, there's lots of places to 'hang around' that aren't as it were on the streets. And the main victims of that kind of 'crime' are much the same people as the perpetrators anyways.

Ah, that is a good point. But I'm thinking of the whole "going home late at night and running into a teen gang"-sort of thing. Of course, that isn't as common as people think, but it does happen. There was a case in Sweden quite recently with a man who told some guy to not urinate against the wall. The guy and his friends knocked him down and jumped on his head till he died. Also, it isn't just about perpetrators it's also about paternalistically protecting those people. Drunk teens are very common victims of all sorts of crimes.

So you admit it's paternalism, and you still support it?
When did you become a nanny state liberal?

"Admit"? How could one possibly deny it? Anyway, I don't support it, as I have stated several times. Political debates aren't just about stating one's own opinions and shoving them down other people's throats, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, in order:

Lewis: Good for you. I've never had a crime happen to me either, but I know many who have been victims. And I'm fairly carefull when I'm out late at night.

Alcon: You mean to say that you never made an assumption that cannot be scientifically proven? In fact, had there been scentific proof it would, in my book, have ceased to be an assumption. I don't think there is anything odd with me making such assumptions. I have stated good rational arguments why it should be the case. I don't know that there is enough empirical data to warrant any sort of conclusion. But I don't trust empirical evidence without theory to back it up.

BRTD: You never cease to amaze. Will you NEVER understand that your own personal observations does not make things "flat out false". And noticing the last part of your post, yes, a curfew on you and people like you would probably do more to lower crime than almost any other sort of curfew, but that's another issue.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Let's take a look at Mankato's most wanted: http://www.ci.mankato.mn.us/safety/mostwanted.php3

None are minors.

Now let's look at the active warrants: http://www.ci.mankato.mn.us/documents/activewarrants.pdf

The vast majority are adults.

Where are the statistics that show teenagers commit more crimes?

[Gustaf]

Let's take a look at Mankato's most wanted: http://www.ci.mankato.mn.us/safety/mostwanted.php3

None are minors.

Now let's look at the active warrants: http://www.ci.mankato.mn.us/documents/activewarrants.pdf

The vast majority are adults.

Where are the statistics that show teenagers commit more crimes?

Um...of course the most wanted criminals are going to be older, given that they've had more time to commit crimes. We're not talking about hard-core criminals, that kind of crime couldn't be stopped by a curfew (or any such measure) anyway. We're talking about more typical youth crimes.

And, of course, most older criminals started out as petty teen criminals. I guess, using your logic, we should scrap all education because no renowned scientists are students.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Look at the second list. That's not just of big criminals, it's every outstanding warrant. There are people on there for writing bad checks.

[Gustaf]

Look at the second list. That's not just of big criminals, it's every outstanding warrant. There are people on there for writing bad checks.

Teenagers don't write many bad checks either, for obvious reasons. And, once again, bad checks aren't really affected by curfews.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My point is the list doesn't include only big criminals.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

most youth "crime" is caused by high drinking ages, illegality of soft drugs, ridiculous ageo f consent rules and general societal atittudes of attempting to put draconian controls on the young(PC/multicultrualism in euro and baby boomer attempts to torun us into the next greatest grenration). Remove those factors and it wouldn't be a problem

[Gustaf]

most youth "crime" is caused by high drinking ages, illegality of soft drugs, ridiculous ageo f consent rules and general societal atittudes of attempting to put draconian controls on the young(PC/multicultrualism in euro and baby boomer attempts to torun us into the next greatest grenration). Remove those factors and it wouldn't be a problem

So you mean that the problem with rapes, drug addiction and alcoholism is that they are illegal? I'm sorry, but that is cold-hearted nonsense.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

1 Can be handled by simply hanging them. No need for curfews
2 Again too bad so sad. Not my problem
3 See #2